I might check out this movie even though its another attempt to discredit Ol Shaky by jealous types who think a relative of theirs was far more "educated." Great writers are born, not made. You either have an imagination or you don't, it can't be taught. The only name on those manuscripts is William Shakespeare, anything is else is just another conspiracy theory.

Whatever you think of the authorship question, this is a well-made and well-acted film set in one of the most intriguing periods of English history - an era with so many stories to tell. The filmmakers should be commended for that.

- M. G. Scarsbrook, author of THE MARLOWE CONSPIRACY, an historical novel featuring Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare teaming up to expose a high-level government conspiracy.

I don't think the actual concept behind the film is really what makes it so questionable. The real issue is the series of fantastic actors that try and salvage a properly poor script. The dialogue is awkward and horribly stilted, although that did get better as the movie went on. Rafe Spall is cast as a slightly disjointed Shakespeare, which he may do fairly well but it is just distracting and he is capable of far better. Rhys Ifans is good enough, but his character encounters so many issues that the film barely mentions - I mean he commits incest, someone tells him of this and its never really referred to again.

More than the performances though, the concept just doesn't work. I'm not that bothered about the altering history, you can get away with that in return for a decent story, but this wasn't. The cinematography, for all the hype around Emmerich's action movie past, was limited to the occasional sweeping shot over London. And the continual skipping through history just didn't work, even if a traditional linear linear structure didn't suit, it would have been better than what we got in return.

Book-ended as a piece of theatre in of itself, the scenario it presents gets so crazed that what's on screen can't possibly be treated as historical document. The screenplay is absolutely FULL of incendiary material that takes very broad shots at every historical figure it contains. Shakespeare isn't the only one to get shafted, and doesn't even come off the worst, in my opinion.

That said, in doing so it bares all the hallmarks of something that, ironically, belongs on the stage. It's obvious why this material attracted such a great, thespian cast. The only performance I didn't enjoy was Rafe Spall as William Shakespeare. Granted, he's working with a script paints the man as a complete dick, but Spall seems to be playing it for laughs and it doesn't work for me. Maybe it's a failing on paper, or maybe it's a failing of both Roland Emmerich and Spall failing to understand the character as written. I don't know. Weird. Rhys Ifans was awesome though, and special mention should go to Edward Hogg, as Robert Cecil, who I think stole every scene.

Technically, I think it's fantastic. Great looking film that brings the era to life with aplomb. It's almost hard to believe this comes from the man responsible for Godzilla and 2012. It's his most accomplished to date with sumptuous visuals throughout, with only a few aided by CGI. I don't honestly think he'll ever make anything this well considered ever again. Which is kind of a shame.

Anonymous is a cheeky film that leaves the audience with a wry smile. Almost as if Emmerich and John Orloff were sitting right there, waiting for the fireworks. By the close, I think it gets too bogged down in fabricating the known facts to serve the argument. Not to be taken seriously but it's no less of an enjoyable romp.

Really surprised this was given two stars. My fella wanted to see it and went with no expectations at all and really enjoyed it. Not really my genre but am so used to seeing sequels, prequels, reboots, blockbusters that do exactly what they say on the tin that was a surprise to see a 'big film' (especially by roland emmerich!) that was genuinely a bit different.

Not saying greatest film ever and it is more of a curio but is not a two star film (especially after the new planet of the apes and the inbetweeners movies are getting 4 stars) so give it a chance if undecided on what to see.

Well acted, looks good & the version of events is intriguing if nothing else. It's a shame it gets kind of lost in the conspiricy part of the story. Also can't help thinking that if the exact same film had been made by a well respected director the ratings would be higher

Shakespeare anything is about everyone and everything but Shakespeare. Anonymous follows that well traveled path in this most excellent attempt to support the Oxfordian perspective that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford wrote the plays known as William Shakespeare because he was a noble, educated enough to write so majestically and so beautifully. Yet Shakespeare had enough education with the classics and the four 4s to accomplish the same end. Rhetoric being the most important and profound of the four “R”s.

Most of Shakespeare's works are from other sources. He just set other's works to his pen and parchment/paper (never blotted a line)

Anonymous has used some conspicuous poetic license in the plot. The plot to raise the rabble to force Q1 from power was not from the seed of Richard 111 but of Richard 11. Marlowe may have been a two timer and a conniving spy but died in Depford of, supposedly a knife fight in a drunken brawl. (he may have been Shakespeare)

Edward de Vere's travels uncannily put him in places in Shakespeare's plays. There are other very convincing circumstantial evidence to support the Oxfordian perspective over the Stratfordian (Shakespeare is Shakespeare). The de Vere bible being a famous case.

Anonymous is a well done film. It has excellent ambiance. Solid professional acting. It is a damn good, interesting film.

As for the Bard, everything he ever needed to know about the human condition he learned from the classics and the bible. England had no real language at the time. He could have authored the plays verbally without the ability to write if he didn't go to grammar school. His father was like the mayor of Stratford so he must have been schooled.

As a great fan of Shakespeare I thought this film would make me angry but it would need to put forward some kind of serious argument for that to happen. You would think that a film that is trying to put forward a compelling argument that history is wrong would make some effort not to include totally preposterous innaccuracies. I lost all respect for this movie when the Earl of Oxford actually picked a red and white tudor rose from a rose bush. That would be like a film about Walt Disney having a scene where Mickey Mouse is sitting in the great animator's office.